[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130104.152031.1827815520394695268.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:20:31 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: lkundrak@...sk
Cc: buytenh@...tstofly.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mv643xx_eth: Fix a possible deadlock upon ifdown
From: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:17:43 +0100
> @@ -943,7 +943,7 @@ static int txq_reclaim(struct tx_queue *txq, int budget, int force)
> struct netdev_queue *nq = netdev_get_tx_queue(mp->dev, txq->index);
> int reclaimed;
>
> - __netif_tx_lock(nq, smp_processor_id());
> + __netif_tx_lock_bh(nq);
I still don't understand why this change is necessary.
The TX reclaim function is invoked in software interrupt context in
all of the places where this lockdep warning might matter.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists